Alexithymia in Parkinson's disease is related to severity of depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors investigated the possible relationship between depression and alexithymia in a population of hospitalized patients suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD). Fifty-eight PD patients without dementia participated in the study. Alexithymia was screened using the 20 item version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS 20). Depression was diagnosed using a Structured Clinical Interview (SCID I) for DSM-IV. Severity of depression was evaluated with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The prevalence of Alexithymia was about 21%. PD patients with major depression were significantly more alexithymic (TAS 20 average score = 61.4) than PD patients without depression (TAS 20 average score = 47.4) and, also, tended to be more alexithymic than PD patients with minor depression (MiD; TAS 20 average score =50.6), whereas no difference was found between PD patients with MiD and PD patients without depression. Moreover, high scores obtained on the BDI were found to strongly predict high level of alexithymia in these patients. These results extend to a cohort of PD patients previous data from the literature evidencing a strong association between alexithymia and severity of depressive symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".